To the Journal editor:

I believe the science that predicts we have very few years to drastically reduce human effect on global warming, lest we make this planet unfit for human survival. I write also to call out continuing efforts of Amy Clickner on behalf of our local Lake Superior Community Partnership (and every level of chambers of commerce from cities to states to our nation) to encourage delay in efforts to reduce our collective carbon footprint (Journal columns of July 6 and Aug. 1).

I maintain that the gentlest way to begin reducing our carbon footprint is to immediately halt all “high-risk” fossil fuel projects (fracking, long-distance pipelines, near shore drilling, and the new breed of massive fuel transport terminals). For this letter, I limit my attention to Line 5 crossing the Straits of Mackinac. My comments address two aspects: 1) for each of us to take the big/long-term picture with regard to reversing global warming, and 2) the unsuitability of Enbridge as the principal contractor if Michigan were to go ahead with the Line 5 project.

1) We who believe the science of human-caused global warming maintain that every human must participate to the fullest extent toward this important objective. I invite you to do a serious attempt to adopt the “big/long-term picture.” If every planned “high-risk” fossil fuel project is allowed to proceed, the net gain in our cumulative carbon footprint will further increase global warming. We need to start reversing our global “fossil fuel economy” now.

2) When the Snyder administration considered upgrading Line 5, Journal reports documented how the Michigan natural gas requirement could be met by various alternative transportation modes if Line 5 were shut down. They suggested there would not be any significant gap in supply. Despite many full page Journal ads by Enbridge extolling how they would improve safety of fuel delivery, I remind us that Enbridge’s Line 6B oil spill (July 25, 2010, 840,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo River) resulted in a $75 million settlement. “Settlement” means the money awarded is far less than the actual liability, meaning some amount of Enbridge’s liability is borne by Michigan taxpayers.

If Enbridge is awarded this contract, we are inviting more of the same, especially in light of recent Journal articles regarding Enbridge’s reticence to guarantee costs of a spill in the Straits of Mackinac.